Retrieve Recycled Near Miss

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses significant behavioral details beyond the annotations: it is a PATCH operation that modifies fields, returns the modified object, and includes error handling information (401/403/404). It also clarifies partial update behavior and project_id defaulting. This aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and does not contradict them, though the internal 'retrieve' wording is inconsistent with the actual behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but each sentence provides useful information: initial function, update semantics, defaults, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the contradictory first sentence could be tightened to improve clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers return values, error codes, parameter defaults, and the endpoint, but it does not clarify the incident_id parameter or explicitly state that this is a restore operation (only implied by the endpoint). Given the confusion between 'retrieve' and 'update/restore', the context is incomplete for correct tool selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema for project_id (defaulting behavior) and id (must reference an existing record, resolve via list tool). It also lists required parameters. However, it does not mention incident_id, which is present in the schema but has a clear description there. Overall, it compensates well for the schema's minimal descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Retrieves a specific Recycled Near Miss' but immediately contradicts this by saying 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' and 'Returns the modified recycled near miss on success.' The endpoint is PATCH .../restore, indicating this is actually a restore/update operation, not a simple retrieval. The purpose is muddled and potentially misleading, though it does name the resource (recycled near miss) and the recycle bin context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides some usage context by stating that project_id defaults to procore_set_config and that id must be resolved with a matching list tool first. However, it does not clearly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_recycled_near_miss or list_recycled_near_misses, and the confusing retrieve-vs-update framing further obscures appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.